Factors Influencing the Uptake of
Technology for Teaching, Learning and
Assessment at the University of Ibadan,
Nigeria
January 2013
1
Table of Contents
1.
2.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Design ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1
Research questions ................................................................................................................. 4
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1
Instrument development and piloting .................................................................................... 5
3.2
Data gathering ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.3
Sample description ................................................................................................................. 5
3.3.1
Survey.............................................................................................................................. 5
3.3.2
Focus group discussions and interviews ......................................................................... 7
3.4
Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 8
3.5
Validity and reliability ............................................................................................................. 8
3.6
Limitations of the study .......................................................................................................... 8
3.7
Study successes and challenges .............................................................................................. 9
4. Overview of ICT and educational technology in Nigeria ................................................................ 9
5. Overview of educational technology context at the University of Ibadan .................................. 13
6. Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 14
6.1
Access to educational technologies ...................................................................................... 14
6.1.1
Student access .............................................................................................................. 18
6.2
Use of educational technology for teaching and learning .................................................... 20
6.2.1
Technology for teaching................................................................................................ 20
6.2.2
Technology for learning ................................................................................................ 23
6.2.3
Determinants of use of technologies ............................................................................ 27
7. Implications for technology uptake in the University of Ibadan .................................................. 32
8. Enablers to educational technology uptake................................................................................. 32
8.1
Lecturers’ perceptions of factors impacting technology uptake .......................................... 32
8.2
Students’ perception of enablers of technology uptake ...................................................... 34
8.3
Constraints to educational technology uptake ..................................................................... 35
9. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................. 36
Annexure A – Staff Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 38
Annexure B – Student Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 44
Annexure C – Focus group discussion and interview guide for staff .................................................... 52
Annexure D –Focus group discussion guide for students ..................................................................... 54
2
ACRONYMS
DLC
ET
FGD
GES
ICT
IT
NGO
NOUN
NUC
PA
PHEA-ETI
PI
RAS
STEP-B
UI
Distance Learning Centre
Educational Technology/Technologies
Focus Group Discussion
General Education Studies
Information Communication Technologies
Information Technology
Non-Governmental Organisation
National Open University of Nigeria
National Universities Commission
Public Address
Partnership for Higher Education in Africa- Educational Technology Initiative
Principal Investigator
Research Assistants
Science Technology Education Post- Basic
University of Ibadan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the Partnership for Higher Education in Africa (PHEA) for providing funding for
this research.
3
1. Introduction
This report describes the processes that were undertaken in the design and execution of the research
to explore factors influencing uptake of educational technology at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan,
Nigeria. The report explains the context of the research and the data collected, and presents findings
from the data, concluding with an explanation of the implications of the research for technology
uptake at the University of Ibadan. This research was a part of a multi-site study involving seven
Universities in Africa. This research project is the culmination of a common interest on variations in
technology uptake expressed by institutions who were part of the Partnership for Higher Education in
Africa (PHEA) Educational Technology Initiative (ETI), managed under the auspices of the South African
Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE) from 2009 – 2013. The multi-site research team coordinated
by SAIDE involved seven principal investigators from the seven institutions, who appointed research
assistants to assist with various research activities as required.
2. Research Design
This section presents the methodology of this research within the context of the University of Ibadan.
2.1
Research questions
The study intended to answer the following questions:
1) What technologies are being used for teaching, learning and assessment at the University of
Ibadan?
2) How are these technologies being used?
3) What is the context within which technologies are used?
4) Who is using the technologies?
5) What are the reasons proffered for the uptake of technology?
6) What are the enablers of technology uptake for teaching, learning and assessment?
7) What are the constraints to technology uptake?
3. Methodology
This study is a mixed mode non-experimental quantitative and qualitative study. It used the
descriptive as well as the survey research designs in planning for collection of data. The choice of the
descriptive design is based on the fact that it provides the summary of an existing phenomenon, by
using numbers, furthermore it also assesses the nature of existing conditions. In this study, data and
information on a number of existing phenomenon and conditions were collected, such as what
technologies are being used by students and faculty staff, where they are stored, for what purposes
they are used, in what context and so on. The study explores enablers and constraints of technology
uptake, hence a survey design was adopted as it enables the collection of large quantities of data over
a short period of time. In this research, a sample of students and staff of the University of Ibadan were
selected and their views sought on the possible enablers and constraints of technology uptake in the
University. This engagement was done through focus group discussions and individual interviews.
4
3.1
Instrument development and piloting
Two sets of instruments were designed - one set for staff and the another for students. Each set
contained a questionnaire and a set of questions for focus group discussions and interviews.
Based on the research questions and the sub-questions stated above, items were designed and
developed by members of the multi-site research team to capture the needed information. Face
validation was achieved by circulating the instruments to all members of the team, with any
corrections and modifications discussed and effected collectively.
3.2
Data gathering
Data was gathered through questionnaires administered by the research assistants to the selected
sample. For the students, this was done either at the beginning of a lecture or at the end, with the
permission of the lecturer. The questionnaires for the students were collected immediately, while
those for the staff were collected at an appointed time given by the staff. Repeated follow ups on staff
enabled the research assistants to eventually collect 123 questionnaires from the staff, and 1 916
questionnaires were collected from students. The interviews and the focus group discussions (FDGs)
were organised and carried out at different times by the principal investigator (PI) and the research
assistants (RAs). The services of an expert in qualitative methods, a staff member at the university,
were employed and she joined in at the FGDs to provide guidance and probes at times and also to
record the sessions. The FGDs for staff were held at convenient lecture rooms and big offices available,
while those for the students were held in lecture rooms/laboratories. The process of data collection
spanned five months, from January- May 2012.
3.3
Sample description
3.3.1
Survey
The University of Ibadan has nine Faculties, and a College of Medicine, divided into the basic Medical
Sciences and the Clinical Sciences. The College has four Faculties, from where staff who were already
using Technology to an extent were identified. The aim was to identify at least two staff members in
each faculty who had been reported as using ICT for teaching in one form or another and two who
were not using technology. Fortunately there were several faculty who were ready to complete the
questionnaire, and in all there were 123 staff respondents (83 male and 39 female). The profile of
respondents is highlighted below in Table 1.
Table 1
Profile of staff respondents
Faculty
Law
Clinical Medicine
Basic Medicine sciences
Sciences
Pharmacy
Veterinary Medicine
Technology
Number
4
21
14
11
8
13
12
%
3.3
17.1
11.4
8.9
6.5
10.6
9.8
5
Faculty
Agriculture
Social Science
Arts
Education
Total
Number
14
5
8
7
123
%
11.4
4.1
6.5
5.7
100
It seems that in the Science based faculties, there were more lecturers reported to be using technology
from where the sample used was drawn. Though this data does not capture all lecturers using
technology, it was easier during data gathering to get volunteers in the Science based faculties, such
as the College of Medicine, the Faculties of Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and Technology. More
especially in the College of Medicine, because there are many lecturers using technology.
In the University, several collaborations in research take place with Universities in the developed
world, most of it in the College of Medicine. This is what most probably influences the use of
technology by many lecturers in the College, as they have grants that can cover the cost of purchase
and they have exposure to the use and possibilities of technologies from the various collaborations
they are involved in. The College also has a separate ICT unit apart from the University’s own, providing
services for the staff. An example is the fact that it was at the College of Medicine that the learning
management system (LMS) platform Moodle was first introduced for teaching and learning.
In most non-Science based Faculties, there is still a reluctance to engage technology fully. This may be
due to the fact that technology use is associated with being competent in the area of the Sciences.
There may need to be more effort to engage staff in these Faculties.
In a recent Technology Initiative in the University, the PHEA-ETI where technology was employed to
create course content, the non- Science based faculties were not really represented. There was no
representation from the Faculties of Law and the Social Sciences and only three staff from the Faculty
of Arts participated. It seems only the Faculty of Education was really represented in the Initiative,
with about 10 staff members. This can be attributed to the fact that there is a functioning educational
technology Unit in the Faculty. Through this Initiative, a lot of awareness on the use of technology was
created. Furthermore technology integration skills of the staff were developed. Not being part of this
initiative could be a setback for many of the non- participating Faculty staff - one of the consequences
being not having staff in those Faculties who are adept at technology use.
The target for the students was dependent on the staff. The sample comprised of the students who
took courses taught by faculty staff members who had filled the questionnaire. The sample size was 1
916 (737 males and 1140 females). The student sample profile is shown in Tables 2-3
Table 2
Distribution of Students based on Faculties
Faculty
Law
Technology
Pharmacy
Education
Veterinary Medicine
Arts
Social Sciences
Agriculture
Science
Number
93
117
114
602
164
193
64
119
168
%
4.85
6.11
5.95
31.42
8.56
10.07
3.34
6.21
8.77
6
Faculty
College of Medicine
No indication
Total
Table 3
%
11.53
3.18
100
Distribution of Students Departments based on academic level
Level
First year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year
Fifth year
Sixth year
Seventh year
Eighth year
No indication
Total
3.3.2
Number
221
61
1 916
Number
78
753
474
345
83
120
48
8
7
1916
%
4.1
39.3
24.7
18.0
4.3
6.3
2.5
.4
.4
100.0
Focus group discussions and interviews
For the FGDs, faculty staff were approached and the intent was to have at least one FGD per faculty.
However, this was not achieved as it was difficult to get staff together for such discussions, owing to
their different workloads. As such, only three FGDs that took place for the staff who could attend,
from the faculties of Pharmacy (six lecturers), Education (six lecturers) and The General Studies Unit
(four lecturers). Faculty staff from the General Studies Unit comprised of staff from Arts and Sciences.
All participants were members of staff who had been recently involved in an Educational Technology
initiative in the University, who can be referred to as the early adopters of technology. These staff
members were involved in the use of technology in various forms, such as for presentation, research,
and data analysis.
To substantiate the data from the FGDs, there were also eight in-depth interviews conducted with
staff from the Faculties of Education, Arts, Veterinary Medicine, Agriculture, and Clinical Sciences. As
with the lecturers involved in focus group discussions, these lecturers were also early adopters of
technology in their faculties.
There were only two FGDs conducted with the students, one in the Faculty of Science and the other
in the Faculty of Education. The participants were students whose lecturers were using technology
other than PowerPoint for teaching. The invitation to participate in a FGD was communicated to
students through the student association and only those who were willing to be part of it came for the
FGDs. Usually such students are the enthusiasts who, though they may not have much experience with
technology, are eager to know more. Students who came to FDGs also did so because their lecturers
were using technology for teaching. This motivated students to want to share their opinions and
experiences of using ICTs for learning.
7
3.4
Data analysis
The data collected from the questionnaire were collated and coded using frequency counts and
percentages. ANOVA and T-tests were used where appropriate to explore significant differences in
responses according to age, gender, course/faculty and levels of study. The FGD responses were
transcribed and printed out and thematically coded. The RAs where divided into three groups and
each group was to code the responses based on the thematic codes earlier agreed by the multi-site
research team at all participating universities. The RAs were asked to create extra codes for responses
they regarded as important but which were not codable using existing codes. A consensus was reached
after the initial coding by the PI and one of the RAs in areas where there were disagreements.
However, for those responses where there was more than one code assigned, it was discovered that
the response could fall under any of the codes so identified, and the context of the response took
precedence in determining the final code assigned.
3.5
Validity and reliability
Validity was ensured at multiple levels for this research. The validity of the instrument was guaranteed
through critical scrutiny by all members of the multi-site research team. To enhance validity, the RAs
where trained on what was to be expected from each question and in case respondents asked them
questions on any items. The same exercise was replicated for the FGD questions. The FGDs where
designed such that at least two researchers were present. The service of an expert, in qualitative
research was also employed, she was able to assist in ensuring the discussions were directed to gather
relevant and useful information and she also recorded them. In analyzing the FGD and in-depth
Interview responses, a set of codes were identified and agreed upon. However when there were no
suitable codes, new ones were generated. Three groups coded the responses to ensure validity and
compare the reliability of the generated codes. Where there was no agreement on codes there would
be discussion till a commonly agreed code was justified.
3.6
Limitations of the study
There were several limitations of the study - not being able to conduct further investigations to
responses of the FGDs which could have shed further light on issues, was one of the limitations of the
study. While collating the responses for report writing, it was discovered that there could have been
more probing questions asked. To reassemble the participants at that time was quite impossible. To
be very objective, different RAs carried out different FGDs and interviews, though there was training,
which reduced the level of variation, yet it still left some gaps that may have been probed. This can be
tied to little experience in qualitative research methods by the team.
Although the study specifically targeted staff in the university using technology, there is the possibility
that many who use technology in the University could have been left out in the choice of participants
due to lack of access to a record or inventory of technology skills by the staff University. The study had
to rely on snowball sampling in trying to find out who use technology. This method was only effective
in identifying those whose technology use is known, and may have left out those whose use is more
private.
8
3.7
Study successes and challenges
One of the greatest successes of this research project is the ability to collaborate online with
colleagues from other parts of the continent on a research project. Bringing expertise together from
different regions provides a context for elevated standards of research work and goes a long way to
ensure that there are little or no gaps in development and execution of the research. Different
expertise was brought together, which helped in honing the skills of team members in this crucial area
of qualitative research. Having a core group of experts to share experiences with and to find out
opinions on issues during the course of the project was quite rewarding.
Another quite exciting consequence of the research was skills developed by the RAs. The five RAs
involved in this study at UI were postgraduate students, mostly studying for their PhDs. The exposure
in training on facilitating FGDs and conducting interviews gave them not only opportunities to meet
Faculty staff who they could approach for academic assistance for their work in future, but they also
acquired qualitative research skills.
Despite the fact that a multi-site research team provided needed expertise in conducting the research,
there were delays at times in getting responses from team members. This could really dampen the
enthusiasm of others who had committed scarce time to doing their own part of the work. It is quite
understandable though, that members of the research team had competing priorities within their
Faculties, and this research was just an added responsibility. The latter could have been less of an
issue, if there had been opportunities to do synchronous discussions so as to get immediate feedback
on issues raised rather than having to wait for mails. However, efforts to have these at the beginning
of the research project proved challenging due to connectivity challenges in different parts of the
continent.
4. Overview of ICT and educational technology in Nigeria
The necessity for a national ICT policy became more apparent after the participation of the Nigerian
delegation in the first African Development Forum on the Challenge to Africa of Globalization in the
Information Age, held in Addis Abba in October 1999. As a result, a national workshop on the National
Information and Communication Infrastructure was held in Abuja in March 2000. This began the
journey into getting a roadmap for ICT integration into all facets of the life of the Nation.
The Federal Executive Council of Nigeria approved a National Information Technology (IT) policy in
March 2001, and Nigeria started implementing its ICT policy in April 2001 after the establishment of
the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), the implementing body. The
policy empowered NITDA to enter into strategic alliances and joint ventures and to collaborate with
the private sector to realise the specifics of the country’s vision of, “making Nigeria an IT capable
country in Africa and a key player in the information society by the year … through using IT as an
engine for sustainable development and global competitiveness’. The policy amongst other things
recognized the private sector as one of the driving engines of the IT sector.
The Vision as stated in the Policy was to use IT for wealth creation, poverty eradication, global
competitiveness and education. The general objective was to standardize the Nigerian Information
Technology Society with the view to producing a very high performing national workforce that
competes globally in the ICT driven economy. The IT policy document focused on several areas of
national interest. It was however considered overdue for review by the Government, based on their
many years of consultations with ICT stakeholders which resulted in several policy documents and
9
results (Draft Nigerian ICT policy 20111) and due to changes and advances in ICT globally and in Nigeria.
In this light the government set up the Nigerian National ICT for Development (ICT4D) Strategic Action
Plan Committee to develop a new ICT policy for development as the ICT action roadmap for the nation.
According to Yusuf 2005, the 2001 policy document had no specific provisions for ICT in education.
Achimugu et al 2010 support this and highlight that the focus of the policy was learning about ICT and
not necessarily using ICT for teaching and learning. The policy was also silent on a vital aspect which
is the development of technology skills and competencies of teachers. Knowing that any success in
the education system depends largely on the professional development, skills, knowledge and attitude
of teachers, this seems like a monumental oversight.
The Ministry of Education created its ICT department in February 2007. Notwithstanding several
government agencies and other stakeholders in the private sector initiated ICT-driven projects and
programmes to impact all levels of the educational sector. Some of the projects include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Nigerian Universities Network (NUNet) Project
The Polytechnics Network (PolyNet) Project
The SchoolNet Project
The Nigerian Education, Academic and Research Network (NEARNet)
The Teachers Network (TeachNet) Project
National Open University
National Virtual (Digital) Library (Ministry of Education/ NUC)
National Virtual Library (Ministry of Science and Technology/NITDA)
National Information, communication and education programme of the Presidency
In the primary education sector, the Government introduced the US$100 XO laptop computer project
for Nigeria’s 24 million public primary school children. At the secondary level of education, SchoolNet
a non-governmental organisation (NGO) created learning communities of educators and learners who
could use ICTs to enhance education by:



Implementing, supporting, and coordinating ICT development projects in education
Providing and supporting lower-cost, scalable technology solutions and Internet for schools
Providing support mechanisms for schools for technical infrastructure and connectivity
SchoolNet Nigeria has, in collaboration with the mobile phone operator MTN, established ICT
laboratories/cyber cafés for four schools in four states in each of a four-phase project using local
Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Other developments in this area include that of Multichoice Nigeria,
in collaboration with SchoolNet Nigeria. In 201 Nigerian schools in 21 states audio-visual learning
technologies were introduced in 2004 (Vanguard newspapers 15th February 20122). These schools
were provided with audio visual centres where they could view lessons and practical sessions in
Science subjects. This was to cater for the dearth of teachers and facilities for the teaching of Science
in the secondary schools and also to demystify science and other difficult subjects for the students, to
enable them have a better conceptual understanding of each subject.
To motivate teachers to integrate the facilities into their teaching and learning processes, awards were
introduced for teachers’ creative uses of these facilities. Unfortunately, this intervention was based
mostly in Federal schools so it created some inequality among schools’ access to ICT resources.
In a report by Agyemen (2007), it was noted that at the tertiary-level education, the National
Universities Commission (NUC), the government agency responsible for registering and regulating
1
2
http://www.tech360ng.com/nigeria-national-ict-policy-document-draft/
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/02/review-curriculum-for-ict-now/
10
universities, prescribed PC ownership for universities as follows: one to every four students, one PC
to every two lecturers below the grade of Lecturer 1, one PC per Senior Lecturer, and one notebook
per Professor/Reader. According to the report, not many institutions had been able to meet these
targets in 2007.
In the study by Achimugu et al (2010), it was noted that in the five Universities investigated in the
South Western part of Nigeria, the following holds true





There is access to remote learning resources
ICTs have broken the barrier of distance in knowledge acquisition
ICTs are altering the functions of libraries and changing the roles of librarians
There is an increasing prominence of ICT inclined institutions
ICT diffusion has led to the efficient institution of Distance Education
However, there are limitations. One of the major limitations to implementing ICT in higher education
in Nigeria is the lack of funds. Despite the fact that the National Universities Commission has worked
to lay the foundation for e-learning through investment in ICT infrastructure, management
information systems, e-mail access and library information services, it is still difficult at the
institutional level to implement ICT supported learning. There has been limited support from
International partnerships. Although there have been corporate initiatives for example those of Cisco
and Microsoft programmes which are developed abroad and delivered in Nigeria extensively through
academies which are hosted in HEIs, the reach is not adequate. In recent times as a spinoff of the
International partnerships, there have been quite a number of local initiatives. These are seen in terms
of capacity building and provision of limited Internet access in many higher institutions.3 Other
limitations identified include inadequate skilled manpower to take up ICTs for teaching and learning,
and resistance to change.
The National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), established in 2002, has created 27 study centres
across the country. The main aim of NOUN, which heavily relies on e-learning methodologies for
instructional delivery, is to make tertiary education available to all citizens. Each NOUN study centre
is a computer laboratory/cyber café equipped with a minimum of 25 computers in a local area network
(LAN) configuration.
Other Government initiatives include the NUC on-line continuous professional development
programme in pedagogy called the Virtual Institute for Higher Education Pedagogy especially for
lecturers who do not have qualifications in education. Individual Universities have since developed ICT
policies and started e-content authoring of their courses. Some have established computer
laboratories mostly with external funds.
Research on the situation of ICT integration and use in the Nigerian context includes that of Achimugu
(2010); Agyemen (2007); Ololube (2006); Iloanusi and Osugwu (2006); Ateequ (2010); and Aluko
(2013). These studies have pointed out the inadequate ICT facilities in Nigerian institutions and have
concluded that the success of the little that has been invested has been minimal. There has been little
or no impact on the mode of delivery of the curriculum content. The studies also show that in the
critical area of teacher education, the impact of ICT has not really been felt. At both the state and
federal Institutions there is dissatisfaction regarding the slow uptake of ICT as a tool for teaching and
learning. Furthermore, it is evident that in places where there is infrastructure in place, there is a
dearth of contextualised and local content resources for teaching and learning. The implication of this
is that Nigeria is lagging behind in relation to ICT access, integration and use in higher institutions. One
3
http://www.unijos.edu.ng/About/History%20of%20Communication.pdf
11
of the possible reasons for this is the deficiency in the policy on ICT, which did not provide focus and
guidelines for the implementation of ICT for teaching and learning especially at the higher education
level. This has given opportunity to many institutions to embark on ICT projects, duplicating efforts in
regions and concentrating mainly on infrastructural development.
In August 2011, the Minister of Communications Technology set up an ad hoc committee to harmonize
all various policies for the different sectors in the ICT industry - Telecommunications, Broadcasting,
Information Technology and Postal Services. The terms of reference of the ad hoc committee was to
harmonise all existing policies in the Information and Communications Technology sector into a single
Information and Communications Technology Policy. The draft policy which was eventually presented
in January 2012 has a mission “to fully integrate information and communication technologies into
the socio-economic development and transformation of Nigeria and into a knowledge based
economy”. The main objective is “to create a conducive environment for the rapid expansion of ICT
networks and services that are accessible to all at reasonable costs”. The objective in relation to the
education sector is “to develop and enhance indigenous capacity in ICT technologies and software
development” (Nigeria ICT Policy, 2012: 13).
One of the policy focus areas which directly addresses education is the Capacity building one, which
recognizes that there is a need for a sustained program to build a critical mass of ICT personnel in
Nigeria. The objectives related to this, amongst others are “to integrate ICT into the national education
curriculum”, “to promote development of ICT skilled personnel” and “to support training and capacity
building among public sector employees in the development and use of ICT tools and applications to
improve the delivery of Government services.” In this regard, the Government promises, amongst
other things, it would:




Facilitate the development of globally competitive training institutions in the field of ICT,
Introduce mandatory training and appropriate courses for ICT at all tiers of education,
Train and retool teachers and facilitators at all levels to enhance their ICT competence,
Promote the development of instructional materials in electronic format.
There is no doubt that the Government is ready to pursue the agenda for ICT in the Nation. However,
there was no concrete and concerted effort to consciously and systematically integrate technology
into the education sector.
The Minister of Education, recognising this, at the 1st annual National Conference on ICT education
in Abuja, expressed that the present state of Information Technology in Education in Nigeria was
unacceptable and must be remedied. The aim of the conference held in May 2012 was to map out
strategies for effective implementation of ICT in education; facilitate exchange of stakeholders’
experiences and provide concepts and tools for formulating viable ICT in education policies. This
was in response to the fact that the draft ICT policy did not actually state clearly the roadmap for
ICT in education.
According to Aluko (2013) issues around LAN, Intranet, ExtraNet, Internet, equipment, bandwidth,
fiber, radio, and satellite have been on the front burner of many higher education institutions.
However, one major project which is set to enhance access and enable better ICT integration is the
NgREN project. The project was set out to create broadband interconnectivity between all Federal
institutions, provide adequate internet bandwidth, develop critical human capacity, provide
modern learning and collaboration content and tools and boost power supply to data centres
amongst other things. This project which is at an advanced stage, is set to revolutionise the ICT
environment in our institutions. Coordinated by the NUC, the project will provide high performance
12
network interconnecting all member institutions and to provide broadband internet access.4 There
is hope that in the very near future, the country will witness a more coordinated integration of ICT
into all levels of education to enhance the quality of education in the country.
5. Overview of educational technology context at the University of
Ibadan
The University of Ibadan (UI), founded in 1948, is the oldest university in Nigeria. With a total staff
complement of 5 800, of whom 1 300 are academic staff and 4 500 support staff, the University enrols
about 23 000 students across 13 faculties, four institutes, and four centres. About 30% of UI students
are postgraduate students, and more than 50% of the student population comprises distance-learning
students. The Vice-Chancellor is the Chief Executive, and he is supported by a management team of
two Deputy Vice-Chancellors, a registrar, a bursar, and the University librarian. The University is run
through a committee system. The Governing Council provides oversight, sets policy, controls finance
and properties, and is the employer of all university staff.
A major strategic shift of the University in the last few years has been the emphasis on postgraduate
education and a rejuvenation of the system to achieve excellence in teaching, research and
community service. There has been a steady increase in postgraduate intake and output, as well as
new courses and programmes. The University considers this an important vehicle for implementing
its vision to be a world-class institution for academic excellence, geared towards meeting societal
needs. In achieving the University’s mission of expanding the frontiers of knowledge through provision
of excellent conditions for learning and research, information and communications technology (ICT)
has played a major role.
The strategic goal of teaching and learning is to create and sustain an environment conducive to
promoting the development of excellence and innovation. Relating to research and development, the
strategic goal is to promote the spirit of enquiry, research, and discovery while contributing to local
and global development through creativity and innovation. The University has, in the last eight years,
pursued an agenda that uses ICT as the fulcrum for achieving the envisioned goals.
A partnership with the MacArthur Foundation has resulted in more than US$1.5 million of investment
in ICT infrastructure and initiatives in the last eight years. The objectives of the ICT interventions
include:




Improving internal and external communication systems in the University,
Developing an efficient staff and student information management system,
Establishing a robust ICT architecture to serve as a structural backbone for current and
future needs of the University, and
Improving the level of IT literacy among staff and students.
To facilitate implementation of ICT initiatives, an ICT Unit was formed. This unit which has
metamorphosed into the IT and Media Services Directorate was responsible for the development of
the infrastructure and use of ICT resources in the University. This was in conjunction with other related
units in the University. The core ICT facility revolves around two very small aperture terminals (VSATs)
4
http://www.technologytimesng.com/progress-recorded-in-campus-research-network-nuc-says/
13
with a bandwidth of 55Mbps on the main campus and 35Mbps at the College of Medicine of the
University. The new directorate houses four units which are:
1. MIS- responsible for student registration, e-learning platform, student portal and so on
2. Infrastructure and Network- runs the cybercafé, deals with Interconnectivity and network
issues
3. Media services- video coverage, setting up multimedia gadget
4. Training- Identification of skills gap and training
There is an existing University website, portal and recently an e-learning platform developed and
supported by the PHEA/ETI since 2010. Internet service provision has become steadier especially
because it has been supported by solar electric hybrid inverters since 2009. Functional units of the
university have individual local area networks (LANs) which are connected to the university network
via fibre optic and wireless radio antennae.
While the University targets have substantially been met relating to deployment of ICT infrastructure
and access, use of ICT to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning is still very limited. Hence,
the PHEA ETI was timely as it provided an opportunity for staff to access funding to develop and
implement innovative teaching projects using technology. However, for uptake of ICT to be enhanced,
it needs institutional backing, hence the need for an Educational Technology Strategy that embeds the
significance of use of ICT for productivity and efficiency within institutional strategy, and outlines
institutional goals related to educational technology.
The power situation has been tackled to a great extent through provision of large generators to back
up the erratic state power supply. The use of renewable sources such as solar power has also been
implemented to a great extent. The water supply system is also being upgraded, while the library has
been sourcing digital systems for efficient literature searches and providing campus wide and external
access to on-line library resources. It is within this context that the study on factors influencing uptake
of educational technology was conducted at UI.
6. Findings
6.1
Access to educational technologies
Staff access
When asked what technologies they had access to in their departments, it was clear that staff had
access to both the traditional and modern technologies as highlighted in Figure 1 below.
14
Figure 1:
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Available technologies in departments
87
78
80.5 77.2
78.9
55.3
53.7
43.9
35.8
26
24.4
13
8.1
5.7 6.5
From Figure 1, it is evident that technologies such as the Overhead projector and desktop computers
(more traditional), multimedia projector, Internet, interactive whiteboard, laptop, printers and
scanners are the most prevalent in the departments. However, the technology’s availability in the
department does not indicate ownership by the department, as some of the technologies are
personally owned. According to responses from the FGD:
“The University provides some, and then I get some on my own”
“The University is trying, but they have to try harder’
“I use my own modem and also use the Internet facilities provided by the University”
From the above comments, it is clear that not all technologies are purchased centrally by the
University, but that departments are also making their own acquisitions. Many departments own
overhead projectors, multimedia projectors and internet facilities, and others purchase laptops,
desktops, scanners and printers individually for staff members.
Having established availability of technologies, it was crucial to establish access – the extent to which
technologies were accessible to staff when they needed it. Figure 2 highlights accessibility patterns.
15
Figure 2:
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Technologies that staff have access to when they need it
95
82
81
43
89
78
69
47
45
33
25
41
19
5
0
The data in Figure 2 to a large extent articulates closely with that in Figure 1. All the technologies that
were indicated to be available were also indicated to be available for use. The major dissonance is
with the public address (PA) system and the smart phone. The former is mostly provided by
departments. However, during the FGD a respondent from the Faculty of Arts indicated that the
department does not have a PA address system but the faculty does. Similarly, while departments may
not have many smart phones, lecturers also make use of their own smart phones, as highlighted in
Figure 3 below.
The technologies cited as being available for use are mostly those that can be easily operated, that is,
they need little or no technical expertise. Some reasons cited during the FGDs for not being able to
access the other tools are1. Bureaucracies- having to write letters go through various officers to access some facilities such
as the Public address systems. If such officers are not around when this equipment is required
then staff do not get to use them. Bureaucracies are usually set up for proper monitoring and
accountability in addition to security, but most times, they constitute hindrances to availability
and use. One of the ways to get around this may be to employ more technical staff who are
directly responsible for the storage, release and use of technologies.
2. Poor Internet access within the faculties - at times it is available in some sections of the buildings
and not in others. This necessitates that staff go to designated areas of the University to access
the Internet. Consequently, they may use the facility for their own personal research but they
are unable to use it for teaching.
There is a strong association between the technologies available in the departments, those accessible,
and those available for teaching, as highlighted in Figure 3 below.
16
Figure 3:
Technologies available for teaching
80
72.4
70
60
50
40
52
46.3
41.5
38.2
30
17.1
14.6
20
36.6
34.1
20.3
7.3
10
2.4
0
A significant number of lecturers indicated that the University provides multimedia projectors (Figure
1). The fact that most lecture theatres in the University are now fitted with multimedia projectors is
reflected in this data, however most of the technologies earlier indicated that are available are used
personally and not for teaching, unlike the multimedia projector. This may be reflective of the fact
that most lecturers do not have the capacity to integrate and use such technologies for teaching in
the classroom.
It was evident that lecturers relied on university and departmental technologies, and that some
lecturers had also personally invested in technologies. When asked to elaborate on what technologies
they owned, the laptop was the most prevalent as highlighted in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4:
Technologies owned by staff
120
98
92
100
80
40
20
83
42
28
3
81
58
51
60
87
27
4
2
0
17
10
0
Additional to laptops, the other prevalent technologies owned by staff include the Internet, scanner,
digital camera and printer. Most staff have over the years acquired different brands of Internet
modems because different modems operate effectively in different locations in the University. This
was also confirmed from the interviews and discussions. Furthermore, many University units have
either provided laptops, printers and scanners for their staff or they facilitate the purchase of such.
This has been done mostly through the postgraduate vote to the departments. Most staff purchase
their own digital cameras because they are quite affordable.
In conclusion, the data presented in this section suggests that the technologies that would enhance
the uptake of technology are actually available either provided by the University or owned personally.
There may still be the need to increase the quantity (though this was not addressed in the research),
so that all staff may have access to prepare and present their courses. It also shows that the University
is moving in the right direction by purchasing equipment that would facilitate technology use.
6.1.1
Student access
The technologies most cited by students as being available in their departments, as shown in Figure
5, are the interactive whiteboard and overhead projector. The other technologies were cited by less
than 50% of the students. This suggests that these technologies are not visible to students, so they
may not be aware of their availability. This argument is supported by the fact that the interactive
whiteboard and the overhead projector are cited widely, and these technologies are visible in lecture
theatres. If the data for students is compared to that of staff, it appears most technologies are
available for the staff and not the students. This suggests that some of the technologies are housed in
locations accessible only to the staff and not students. There is also a possibility that students mix up
the overhead projector with the multimedia projector. This is because most OHPs are no longer in use
in the university. This confusion seems clearer if the data about the technologies personally owned is
considered - about 11.6% of the students claim they own an overhead projector.
Figure 5:
60
Technologies available for student use in departments
51.4
50.9
50
40
30
46.7
44.1
43.4
35.2
34.6
22.1
10
0
18
32.9
21.9
14.4
20
37.1
9.9
The data in Figure 6 further supports the non-availability of the technologies for students. Most of the
technologies cited that were available had average and below average ratings by students as being
available for use by them.
Figure 6:
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Technologies students use for learning
68
54.1
53.9
38 36.7
28.3
16.118.8
32.635.2
26.1
33.935.4
11.1
29
18.7
9.9
18.5
8.4
3.4
As Figure 6 highlights, laptops are the most available. This is because most of the available laptops
were owned by students, as reflected in Figure 7.
Figure 7:
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Technologies owned by students
75.9
68.7
61
33.5 33.3
11.6
7.9 5.8
8.8
26.4
9.3 10.2
15.6
9.5
It is interesting to note that a significant percentage of students own cell phones, laptop computers
and internet. This has implications for uptake of technology for learning, but this can only be exploited
fully if lecturers take up educational technology. Students would be encouraged to make use of
technology if their lecturers made it compelling for them to do so, and one of the ways to do this is to
set assignments that require students to use technology, e.g. word processing assignments or research
that requires use of electronic library resources and the internet.
19
6.2
Use of educational technology for teaching and learning
Having established what technologies are available, the next logical question was to find out the
various uses of the available technologies by lecturers and students.
6.2.1
Technology for teaching
The pattern of technology use by staff was explored through the following questions



How many courses are taught using ET?
How do staff use these technologies to teach?
Why are staff not using other technologies to teach?

What is the context within which these technologies are used by staff?
It emerged that most lecturers teach one to three courses using technology, as highlighted in Table 4.
Table 4
Number of courses taught using ETs
No of Courses
1-3
Number and %of staff who
teach the indicated number of
courses using technology
48 (39.0)
4-6
46 (37.4)
7 and above
13 (10.6)
No Response
16 (13.0)
During FGDs, the major reasons that were proffered for not using technology for teaching by staff are
lack of and epileptic power supply and unavailability of internet services. Without the former, it is
quite frustrating to use technology especially for teaching. There have been instances of power cuts
during lectures, leaving both students and staff frustrated not only because the content may no longer
be accessible, but the flow of the class is disrupted. Going to class and not being sure of power supply
throughout the period of the class is quite frustrating, hence, a significant number of staff are reluctant
to use digital media for their teaching.
Despite this, lecturers who are committed to and see the value of technology for teaching make
provision for alternative sources of electricity at their own cost. Faculties now are investing in
alternative power sources too, at least to power the big lecture theatres which are mostly in use. The
epileptic internet connectivity is also as grave as the power supply issue, and because of this, a number
of internet based resources that could be used to support teaching and learning are not utilised.
One interesting reason that was given for non-use of technology is that “it was not convenient.’
Convenience can also be related to the lack of facilities, because if the facilities are accessible and
adequate, then technology should make learning easier in the long run. Convenience could be in terms
20
of getting the facilities to the lecture rooms and setting them up. It could also be in terms of use, that
is, integrating particular tools into planned lectures. This brings up a major question of what
experience lecturers have with respect to instructional design. In this vein, it is necessary to look at
what lecturers have been using technology for. This is vital so as to provide baseline information
concerning issues of uptake of technology. Based on data from the FGDs, five categories emerged on
the use of technologies.
Firstly, technologies are used for teaching. Some examples given are use of PowerPoint slides for
teaching, for seminars and for practical classes. Visuals have also been presented during lectures using
multimedia projectors. Animations are used especially in the Science based faculties. One particular
lecturer had to put students into groups and they had to come in turns to his office. This was
necessitated because he was using his personal laptop to teach topics such as acoustic phonetics, and
there were no projection facilities in the lecture room. Digital recorders have also been used to teach
phonics, although a limitation is that there are not enough recorders for the available students. Special
packages such as those for teaching speech, statistical computing have also been used at various times
in the University by the lecturers. Cases were also cited of lecturers using digital cameras to capture
locations and scenes that may be used in class, for example, taking pictures of specimen while in the
field to bring to class for student use. These pictures are scanned to be distributed or presented in
class.
Secondly, there is also evidence of the use of technologies for presentation of content during lectures.
The Public address system and the multimedia projector are the most common technologies used for
this.
Thirdly, computers are used for assessment. Lecturers indicated that students take online quizzes as
part of their assessment. In other instances, students send field reports to lecturers by email. Lecturers
also direct students to use technology by asking them to source information online, referring them to
particular websites where they can get more information after the class to either support learning or
to assist in assignments.
Fourthly, with respect to technologies for support, lecturers indicated that they have at times done
the following:



Create webpages to support learning( this was for teaching phonology),
Provide e-copies of lecture notes
Use Social networking for example Facebook for students to post questions, which are
answered by the lecturer, to interact even with students who have graduated, and to discuss
issues on morals and problems being encountered which students do not want to talk about
during face-to- face meetings.
Finally, lecturers indicated that they use technologies for research. Lecturers connect with senior
colleagues online and through social networks to keep abreast of developments in their fields of
specialisations, and to access literature online for research. Lecturers highlighted that they use
technologies for conducting research, and preparing and processing publications of their research
work. Technologies are also used for data management.
From the foregoing, it is evident that despite the challenges of power supply and Internet connectivity,
some lecturers have resorted to using technologies in one form or the other. Despite “the
discouragement some have experienced from colleagues who have been disappointed at one time or
the other in using the technologies”, they still forge ahead and they keep on using them.
21
Based on the information gathered on use, it may seem that quite a number of University staff have
some measure of technology integrating skills which can be harnessed for the uptake of technology.
Though the instances of uses of technology is haphazard, there is no particular pattern, and lecturers
are doing what they feel is right and effective for them. This could go a long way in providing the
context and the enabling environment for more universal and widespread technology use and uptake
in the University. The fact that others may be using technology successfully can be regarded as an
enabler that is already in place for the integration of technology in the institution.
In trying to understand the use of technology within the university, it was essential to explore the
context within which technology is being used. Table 5 presents statements that lecturers were asked
to respond to, to provide insights on the contextual factors impacting uptake.
Table 5
Context Within Which ETs Are Used By Staff5
Statements
My institution has adequate power supply
Disagree
116(94.3)
Agree
7 (5.7)
My institution has adequate internet connectivity
101 (82.1)
20 (16.3)
Where the technologies are used can accommodate students
82 (66.7)
36 (29.3)
Lecture rooms and labs are properly lit
48 (39.0)
73 (59.3)
Lecture rooms and labs are well ventilated
59 (48.0)
48 (39.0)
Sitting arrangements are fixed, cannot be rearranged
74 (60.2)
34 (27.6)
There is technical support to assist with difficulties I am facing
in ET
24 (19.5)
71 (57.7)
All available ETs are functioning properly
58 (47.2)
15 (12.2)
I am aware of ICT policy in my Institution
38 (30.9)
30 (24.4)
I am confident to use ETs
16 (13.0)
85 (69.1)
Table 5 reiterates and emphasises what has already been specified through other data; that
infrastructure and facilities are not adequate, particularly power supply, internet connectivity, and the
required technologies. Learning environments that foster the use of technology in many formats, such
as for group work and discussion, are not available - lecture rooms cannot be re-arranged to
accommodate different learning formats. The issue of learning space is quite vital, - lecture rooms
that are built with air conditioning, but which cannot be utilised because of power cuts, would make
the learning environment uncomfortable for learners and lecturers.
Most lecturers reported that they have technical support for difficulties being faced with the use of
ICT. This could explain why lecturers are still using technologies despite the many barriers. The
question arises of whether this support will still be adequate when more lecturers take up technology
use for teaching and learning. It is positive that most of the lecturers rate their confidence to use ICTs
quite highly. This on its own can have great impact on technology integration despite the barriers.
Another context to consider understanding if the uptake of technology is actually feasible, is the issue
of guiding principles for the use of technology, the ICT policy. That most lecturers are not aware of a
5
Totals do not add up to 100% because the option “I don’t know” has been left out
22
University ICT policy, keeping in mind that those interviewed are mostly those using technology in the
system, is an indication of what has been earlier stated that technology use in the University is not
systemic, it is based on individual choice. The lack of policy guiding ICT usage limits the development
of ICT within the institution as no dedicated tool for developing ICT to encourage uptake would be
available. A policy would address issues of infrastructure, maintenance, training, incentives etc.,
aspects which are likely to encourage uptake if attended to.
In summary, considering the national context, and the UI context, conditions for enabling technology
uptake are not very encouraging. The issue of technology infrastructure and facilities go beyond the
University - to a great extent, it is the Federal government that is responsible for the provision of
electricity, and facilities for teaching and learning. The data shows the poor state of these
infrastructure, and unless there is improvement, many lecturers will continue to be discouraged in
terms of technology uptake.
6.2.2
Technology for learning
The research was interested in exploring what students use technologies for, within what context they
use these technologies, and determinations of the use of educational technology. This was with a
view to try to explain, if there are enablers or barriers to technology uptake. Figure 8 summarizes
students’ use of technologies.
Figure 8:
Students use of technology
8
16.2
Studying
14.5
Research
Social int.
Assignment
21.8
Test
26.3
Figure 8 highlights that students mostly use technologies for social interaction, research and studying.
Regarding studying, students mostly rely on their laptops and the internet as highlighted in Figure 9.
Figure 9:
Technologies mostly used for Studying
23
Studying
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
46.5
44.9
33.9
29.6
25.9
20.8
20
14
9.2
12.4 12.9
They also use overhead projectors and the interactive whiteboard quite prominently, probably for
group study. For research, the choice of technologies used by students is more expanded, as reflected
in Figure 10.
Figure 10:
Technologies mostly used for research
Research
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
67.7
61.8
41.4
29.6
10.2
11.7
21.4 22.7
15
12.7 16.4
Additional to laptop computers and the internet, the cell phone is also used quite significantly as a
research tool. Social networking provides scope for students to widen their repertoire of
technologies used as reflected in Figure 11.
24
Figure 11:
Technologies mostly used for social interaction
Social interaction
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
64.4
59
56.1
49.9
27.2 28.3
23.1
17.7
45 47.6
17.7 15.2
12.5
Laptops and the internet as well as the cell phone remain a popular choice for social interaction,
probably because these technologies provide access to email, skype and social networking. The
laptop and internet remain key technologies for student assignments as shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12:
Technologies mostly used for Assignment
Assignment
70
60
58.9
55.8
50
40
32.6
31.2
30
20
24.5
19.6
17.8
10
0
Laptop Desk top Internet
computer computer
Printer
Scanner Cell phone e-mail
Very few students use technologies for tests as highlighted in Figure 13.
25
Figure 13:
Technologies mostly used for tests
Test
35
29.6
30
26.7
24.2
25
20
17
15
10.6
9.5
10
5
0
Interactive
Laptop
white board computer
Desk top
computer
Internet
Printer
Cell phone
The data presented in this section shows a strong association between availability of technologies and
their use. The laptop computer, Internet and cell phones are owned by most students and are easily
available for them to learn with, which could explain why these are the most commonly used
technologies.
The FGDs provided further insight into student use of technology for assignments. They claimed they
use technology for assignments mostly, to get information, and to submit their assignments. The
assignments which are usually part of the course assessment are mandatory for students and
technology most probably enhances the presentation and quality of the assignments. The students
(from faculty of Science and department of Library study) cited particular instances of ET use; these
include using digital cameras to capture sites, events and specimen especially in the field. Other
examples included the use of mobile phones in tutorials, to search for information, and the use of
desktop computers for word processing.
It was also important to establish the context within which students are using technology, and
determine whether this context is enabling or not. Table 6 provides an overview of students’
perceptions about the technological context within the university.
Table 6
6
Context within which students use ETs6
Statements
My institution has adequate power supply
Disagree
798 (41.6)
Agree
442 (23.1)
My institution has adequate internet connectivity
663 (34.6)
452 (23.6)
Where the technologies are used can accommodate students
542 (28.3)
713 (37.2)
Lecture rooms and labs are properly lit
334 (17.4)
923 (48.2)
Lecture rooms and labs are well ventilated
304 (15.9)
916 (47.8)
Sitting arrangements are fixed, cannot rearranged
452 (23.6)
834 (43.5)
Totals do not add to 100% as the option “I don’t know” has been left out
26
Statements
Disagree
Agree
There is technical support to fix students’ difficulty in ET
713 (37.2)
63 (3.3)
All available ETs are functioning properly
892 (46.6)
104 (5.4)
I am aware of ICT policy in my Institution
460 (24.0)
403 (21.0)
Lecturers are confident to use ETs
536 (28.0)
412 (21.5)
Although many of the students use technologies for research, study, assignments, tests and social
interaction in varying levels of use there are many challenges to their technology use. As highlighted
in Table 6, these include inadequate power supply, inadequate internet connectivity, and the poor
condition of available ETs. Students seem to have a concern with lecturer ICT confidence, despite the
fact that lecturers rated their confidence quite highly. These factors create a discouraging context for
student uptake of technology.
The claim by students that their lecturers are not confident users of technology is noteworthy, and
was supported by students in focus group discussions, where students reiterated that only a few of
their lecturers could adequately use technology well. Perhaps the students’ judgement of their
lecturers was based on students’ own advanced skills, confirmed by some lecturers in FDGs:
“…some of them are fantastic, because when you give them assignments and you mention some
things in class, you find they are able to do so…..”
“Most of them are trying on the Internet”
“They know how to browse, lots of them know how to browse”
The issue of perception of lecturers as not confident users of the technologies may have arisen
because there is still only a small percentage of Lecturers in the University that are using them. Not
quite understanding the contextual issues of the staff, they may just have concluded that their
lecturers just don’t know how to use technologies.
6.2.3
Determinants of use of technologies
The study was also interested in investigating characteristics of users of technology. The aspects that
were investigated are age, gender, course (whether science, applied science, arts or business),
departments and level of study.
Table 7
Students age and their use of ETs
Age Cohort (years)
N
Mean
Less than 20
579
16.84
Standard
Deviation
9.93
21 – 30
1111
16.35
9.54
31- 40
146
17.23
10.51
41 – 50
48
14.00
7.08
27
Age Cohort (years)
N
Mean
51 – 60
11
21.45
Standard
Deviation
12.14
61 and above
2
16.53
20.51
NOTE 19 students did not indicate their age
Table 7 shows that students with age range 51 to 60 used ETs most (mean = 21.5 and those within the
age range of 41 to 50 years used ETs the least (mean = 14.0). Table 8 reveals the significant status of
the differences that exist among the age cohort in their use of ETs.
Table 8
Summary of analysis of variance (ANOVA) on students’ age and their use of ICT
Source
Df
Between groups
Sum of
squares
740.675
F
Sig.
Remark
5
Mean
square
148.446
Within Groups
181688.2
1909
95.175
1.556
.255
Not significant
Total
182428.9
1915
Table 8 shows that there is no significant difference among the age groups of students in their use of
ETs (F(5,1909) = 1.56; P>0.05). This implies that age has no influence on the use of ETs by the University
students.
Considering gender, Table 9 reveals that there is no significant difference between male and female
university students in their level of use of ETs (t = -0.77; df = 1875; P>0.05). This implies that gender
has no influence on the use of ETs by the students.
Table 9
Summary of T-Test analysis showing difference between male and female students’ use of
ETs
Variables
STUDENTS’ USE OF ETs
Male
N
Mean
Std.D
737
16.37
9.03
Female
1140
16.73
10.22
t
Df
Sig.
Remark
-.774
1875
.439
Not significant
Regarding the course, Table 10 shows that those in Science based faculties used ETs most (mean =
16.84); while those in business used it the least (mean = 15.89). Table 10 reveals the significant status
of the difference that exists by field of studies.
28
Table 10
Students’ course and their use of ETs
Course field
Science
N
687
Mean
16.84
Std. D
10.38
Applied Science
602
16.28
9.48
Arts
470
16.56
9.25
Business
46
15.89
8.47
NOTE 111 students did not indicate their courses
Table 11 reveals that the difference among students from various field of study in their use of ETs is
not significant (F(3,1911) = .47; P>0.05). This implies that course of study is not a serious determinant of
the use of ETs.
Table 11
Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on students’ course and their use of ICT
Source
Between groups
Sum
squares
134.931
of Df
F
Sig.
Remark
3
Mean
square
44.977
Within Groups
182293.9
1911
95.175
.471
.842
Not significant
Total
182428.9
1915
Considering departments, Table 12 shows the mean scores of ET uses across the departments. It is
revealed that the Physiology Department uses it most with a mean score of 27.0 while the Department
of Arabic and Islamic studies used it the least with a mean score of 8.0.
Table 12
Students’ departments and their Use of ETs
Departments
Law
Mechanical Engineering
Petroleum Engineering
Wood Production Engineering
Agriculture and Environmental Eng.
Food Technology
Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Industrial Production engineering
Pharmacy
Adult Education
Veterinary. Med.
Vet Pathology
English
Communication and Language Arts
Teacher Educ.
Guidance and Counselling
Library and archival Sciences
N
93
14
21
7
40
13
4
37
114
47
160
4
70
71
157
179
62
Mean
16.46
16.36
21.35
16.00
16.48
21.42
19.5
14.24
16.80
15.70
16.99
15.75
16.11
16.83
16.55
16.73
15.86
29
Std. D
9.58
9.25
9.44
12.64
7.55
16.18
13.03
8.06
9.21
8.73
10.10
9.36
9.04
10.00
8.63
9.90
8.89
Departments
Educational Management
Special Educ.
Human Kinetics and Health Education
KHE
Geography
Political Science
Economics
Sociology
Wildlife Management
Agriculture and Forestry Management
Business Admin and comm.
Classics
Linguistics
Philosophy
Theatre arts
History
European Studies
Arabic and Islamic Studies
Computer Science
Chemistry
Physics
Statistics
Geology
Medicine and Surgery
Mb. Bs
Dentistry
Physiology
N
49
65
43
2
5
18
35
68
51
4
1
5
17
5
13
10
1
45
39
24
25
35
156
41
23
1
Mean
16.10
15.74
17.05
15.50
12.60
17.44
17.06
18.94
16.02
24.50
16.00
20.00
15.06
15.00
15.92
9.00
8.00
18.18
18.05
12.67
20.04
16.71
15.50
14.12
17.09
27.00
Std. D
9.45
9.54
10.27
.71
9.04
8.25
9.66
12.67
8.52
7.68
0.00
14.09
9.41
10.65
7.87
7.54
0.00
8.74
10.45
8.04
12.09
7.62
9.66
10.19
7.40
0.00
NOTE 61 students did not indicate their departments
Table 13 shows the significant status of the difference that exists between the departments in their
level of use ETs.
Table 13
Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Students’ Departments and Their Use of ICT
Source
Mean
square
157.88
F
Sig.
Remark
Between groups
Sum
of Df
squares
6630.808
42
Within Groups
175798.1
1865
95.175
1.659
.033
Significant
Total
182428.9
1915
Table 13 reveals that there is a significant difference among the various department in their level of
use ETs (F(42, 1865) = 1.66; p<0.05). Departments such as physiology (mean = 27.0), Statistics (mean =
20.04), Linguistics (mean = 20.0), Business Administration and Communication (mean = 24.50), Food
Tech (mean = 21.42), and Petroleum Engineering (mean = 21.35) used ETs more than departments
such as Industrial/Production Engineering (mean = 14.24), Political Science (mean = 12.6), European
Studies (mean = 9.0), Arabic and Islamic Studies (mean = 8.0), Physics (mean = 12.67) and Clinical
sciences (mean = 14.12).
30
Based on the above, it can be inferred that departments within which students are studying is a strong
determinant of their use of ETs in the Institution. This may be due to the fact that some lecturers
within such departments rely heavily on the use of technology to teach. This could be true for
departments such as Physiology, statistics and linguistics, where lecturers who use technologies
effectively for teaching were identified.
In relation to Level of study, Table 14 highlights that those in their eighth year use ETs most with the
mean score of 23.00 while those in seventh year used it the least with a mean score of 14.98.
Table 14
Students’ level of study and their use of ETs
Level of Study
First year
N
78
Mean
16.15
Std. D
9.33
Second year
754
16.22
9.23
Third year
474
16.82
10.73
Fourth year
345
16.92
9.30
Fifth year
83
17.04
9.23
Sixth year
120
16.78
11.00
Seventh year
48
14.98
7.38
Eight year
2
23.00
1.42
NOTE 12 students failed to indicate their levels
Table 15 shows the significant status of the difference that exists among students of different levels.
Table 15
Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Students’ Level of Study and Their Use of ICT
Source
df
Between groups
Sum of
squares
417.924
7
Mean
square
59.70
Within Groups
182010.9
1907
95.444
Total
182426.9
1915
F
Sig.
Remark
.626
.821
Not Significant
Table 15 reveals that there is no significant difference among students in various levels of study in
their use of ETs (F(7,1907) = 0.626; P>0.05). Therefore, level of study is not a strong determinant of use
of ET by the students in the institution.
31
7. Implications for technology uptake in the University of Ibadan
Of all the factors that were investigated as being influential to technology uptake, only the department
in which students are studying is seen as having any real significance. The others, gender, age, level of
study and course field are not significant in their influence on technology use. Although research
claims that technology use is at times age differentiated (Prensky, 2001; Toledo 2007) and gender
discriminating (Acuner and İpek 2011, Creamer, Burger, and Meszaros 2004, Topçu 2006), it is obvious
in this study that in the case of the University of Ibadan, it is not the case. A reason that could be
proffered for this result is that the academic work required at the University calls for technology use.
Furthermore, right from the purchase of forms, through registration, classes and at times exams,
students are engaged in the use of technology no matter the age or gender.
Another reason to explain this is that the study concentrated mostly on students whose lecturers have
deployed technology in one form or the other in the classroom. Constant use of technology and seeing
technology in constant use may have removed any anxieties associated with age and gender. This is
most likely true for the course-field also. For example, if students in an arts based discipline have
lecturers who use technology in teaching them and they are required to use technology to learn, it is
quite obvious that despite their inclinations, they would use technology as well as those in the science
based faculties.
The implication of this finding is that lecturers can play a major role in the uptake of technology
especially by students. Lecturers with positive attitudes towards technology, with high perception of
the usefulness of technology, with a tenacity that far outweighs the barriers and with positive selfefficacy would definitely impact positively on the students’ use of technology. The fact that gender,
age, course field and levels of study do not matter in technology use is an indication that it is possible
for there to be no group discrimination in the uptake of technology.
8. Enablers to educational technology uptake
8.1
Lecturers’ perceptions of factors impacting technology uptake
Lecturers were presented with statements to determine the extent of enablers of technology uptake
in the university. The findings are presented in Table 16.
32
Table 16
Responses to issues on enablers of technology uptake for teaching, learning and
assessment by staff?
Statements
Disagree
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of 37 (30.1)
technology
I Don’t
Know
9 (7.3)
Agree
75 (61.0)
I will make better use if I have easy access to the ETs
11 (8.9)
4 (3.3)
107 (87.0)
It will be easy to use ETs if I have technical support
15 (12.2)
1 (.8)
103 (83.7)
The number of technology available to the number of 15 (12.2)
students is not adequate
23 (18.7)
84 (68.3)
There is ICT capacity development training regularly in 21 (17.1)
my institution
67 (54.5)
33 (26.8)
There is incentive to encourage teachers who use 34 (27.6)
technology
72 (58.5)
16 (13.0)
Power supply within the institution is reliable
105 (85.4)
0 (0.0)
17 (13.8)
The available supply of power enables me to use ETs for 104 (84.6)
teaching without interruption
0 (0.0)
17 (13.8)
Table 16 shows that lecturers believe that they will make better use of ETs if they have access to them;
if they have technical support; and if power supply is reliable and allows teaching without interruption.
Sixty one per cent of lecturers are positive that the curriculum of the institution encourages use of
technology. This implies that curriculum wise, there is an enabling environment. However the fact that
the number of technologies available for student use is inadequate as expressed by 84% of the staff,
shows that the university is not prepared for full deployment because of poor infrastructure. One of
the respondents indicated that the institution has given some sort of enabling support by ensuring
that every academic staff has the University e-mail address. This is seen as a step in the right direction
for uptake of technology. The issue here is that the unit involved with this in the University should
monitor use and non-use of the provided facility. One way to start to do this is to ensure that payment
slips and salary slips are sent to such addresses and can only be accessed through email.
Capacity development for ICT use is an important factor for enabling the use of technology, yet 54.5%
of the lecturers were unaware that any training exists in the institution, and 17.1% were sure that it
did not exist. Only 26.8% of the lecturers were confident that training occurs regularly. In the focus
group discussions, lecturers highlighted that capacity building should be frequent. This is critical given
the fact that most students are critical of their lecturers’ abilities to use technology.
Capacity development should be motivating, so that the interest in technology use is sustained till it
becomes a natural habit. This can be achieved by considering what the respondents to the discussions
and interviews specified as motivators to their use technology. This includes the nature of the course
or topic that is taught, the fact that it is the global trend and internationalisation of universities.
Furthermore ETs can save time, enabling a lot of content to be presented within a short period. These
are motivations cited by the staff, and in designing capacity building workshops, these should be well
articulated and presented so that other staff can also be motivated.
33
As enabling as motivation (in form of incentives) is, to ensuring the needed environment for
technology uptake, the data in Table 16 shows that 58.5% of staff are not aware of such a form of
motivation, while 27.6% say there are no incentives for using technology. This research confirmed that
there are no incentives, and this has greatly affected involvement of staff in developing technology
integration skills and participating in workshops that promote ICT usage. Staff would rather spend the
long hours needed at such workshops in carrying out research which contributes towards their
promotion. Incentives do not always have to be financial, but they should be tangible enough to be a
reward for effort expended, e.g. counting towards promotion.
From the data collected therefore, the enabler available for now at the institution is the curriculum,
which encourages technology use. Staff members believe that if there is access, technical support and
uninterrupted power supply, then the environment would be ready for technology uptake. In addition,
if students are given E-scholarships for creative and consistent use and staff rewarded through
recognitions in one form or the other, then the environment would be more enabling for technology
integration.
8.2
Students’ perception of enablers of technology uptake
Students were also asked to reflect on statements to determine their perceptions of factors that
encourage technology uptake. Table 17 highlights the findings.
Table 17
Responses to issues on enablers of technology uptake for teaching, learning and
assessment by students?
Statements
Disagree
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of 312 (16.3)
technology
I will make better use if I have easy access to the ETs
116 (6.1)
I do not
know
235 (12.3)
Agree
129 (6.7)
989 (51.6)
463 (24.2)
It will be easy to use ETs if I have technical support
44 (2.3)
181 (9.4)
875 (45.7)
The number of technology available to the number of
students is not adequate
There is ICT capacity development training regularly in my
institution
There is incentive to encourage teachers who use
technology
Power supply within the institution is reliable
The available supply of power enables me to use ETs for
learning
I am free to use technologies for my learning even though
my lecturers are not using them
140 (7.3)
125 (6.5)
883 (46.1)
499 (26.0)
348 (18.2)
162 (8.5)
582 (30.4)
294 (15.3)
185 (9.7)
756 (39.5)
191 (10.0)
210 (11.0)
561 (29.3)
333 (17.4)
401 (20.9)
641 (33.5)
314 (16.4)
429 (22.4)
From the point of view of students as shown in Table 17, it seems that, factors that constitute an
enabling environment for technology uptake are quite limited. The enablers of technology with any
significance, as agreed to by most students, include capacity building for the technology skills, and
technical assistance.
34
8.3
Constraints to educational technology uptake
Staff members were also asked to reflect on constraints to technology uptake. Table 18 summarises
the findings.
Table 18
Staff perceptions of constraints to technology uptake
Statements
Disagree
Agree
15 (12.2)
105 (84.6)
15 (12.2)
84 (68.3)
I Don’t
Know
23 (18.7)
0 (0.0)
1 (.8)
23 (18.7)
The hardware available is out dated
Some of the software available is inappropriate
There is poor internet access in the school
I am not a confident user of some of these technologies
I do not think my students are competent enough to use
technology for teaching
108 (87.8)
3 (2.4)
11 (8.9)
84 (68.3)
18 (14.6)
103 (83.7)
14 (13.4)
Table 18 discloses that the constraints to staff uptake of ETs includes outdated hardware and poor
internet access. The interviews and discussions corroborated this and added other constraints such as
the haphazard way the university seemed to be implementing ICT integration. One of the respondents
indicated that ‘the University is putting the cart before the horse’. This was in relation to the
infrastructure that needs to be firmly in place before technology is deployed in the classroom. Other
areas that need to be addressed include power supply and provision of the hardware components of
the technologies. Another point stressed was the fact that the use of these technologies is new to
most lecturers makes it challenging for them to use the technologies for teaching and learning. A way
around this could be the use of sensitisation and awareness programmes, which could showcase the
technologies in use.
Students were also asked to reflect on constraints to technology uptake, and the results of their input
are reflected in Table 19.
Table 19
Constraints to Technology Uptake by the Students
Statements
The hardware available is out dated
Some of the software available is inappropriate
There is poor internet access in the school
I am not a confident user of some of these technologies
I do not think my teachers are competent enough to
use technology for teaching
Disagree
284 (14.8)
434 (22.7)
532 (27.8)
807 (42.1)
I Don’t Know
637 (33.2)
408 (21.3)
208 (10.9)
196 (10.2)
Agree
383 (20.0)
393 (20.5)
556 (29.0)
366 (19.1)
620 (32.4)
401 (20.9)
348 (18.2)
Table 19 shows that only 20% of the students agreed that the hardware available in their institution
is out dated (while 33% claimed they did not know). More of them agreed that there is poor internet
access. A significant percentage of students do not find confidence in use of technologies as an issue
for them, and neither do they believe lecturers are not competent users of technology. There seems
to be some significant constraints to students’ uptake of technology.
35
9. Conclusions and recommendations
This study found that laptops and cellphones are the most commonly used technologies, and the
potential of these for teaching and learning by both students and staff should be explored. Private
partnerships could be sought to provide these technologies at discounted rates, or through schemes
that enable access. While there is a desire to use technologies for teaching and learning, there are
several constraints, for example interruptions with power supply and poor Internet access, which
discourage enthusiasm for technology uptake. The university can invest in alternative power supply
to ensure uninterrupted power supply and better connectivity to improve uptake.
The research found that technology use by students for teaching and learning purposes is still very
low, though most students are confident users of technology especially for purposes such as social
networking. It may be necessary to further do an audit of technological students have and based on
this, design courses and training for specific uses of the technology for teaching and learning. The use
of social networking in education has gained tremendous attention in recent times and since most of
the students are familiar with such tools, the starting point of training for them could be these tools.
Therefore the applications of social network tools such as Facebook, twitter and so on need to be
further investigated and modalities about how to integrate them into teaching and learning mapped
out.
Findings show that technology use in the University is not dependent on age, gender, discipline and
level of study. This is a positive result signalling that university deployment of technology can focus
on other more pertinent issues like training and setting up adequate infrastructure, rather than
worrying about the possibility that technology may introduce inequalities among students. However,
when it comes to departmental use of technology, there is significant difference in use. It was
observed that in departments such as Physiology and others, which have high mean scores, there are
lecturers who use and insist on the use of technology by students. This may be one of the reasons why
use is high in such departments. As such, lecturers are active agents in encouraging student uptake.
When technologies are seamlessly integrated within a department’s teaching and learning regime,
there is compelling reason for students to use them.
Capacity building, which empowers both students and lecturers to be able to use technologies
confidently, must take into consideration the motivators for technology use. Such motivators include
both extrinsic and intrinsic reward systems. To a great extent there are pockets of use of technology
within the University system, which can be leveraged upon for such training. The latter should include
awareness sessions on potential of various technologies for teaching and learning purposes, where
specific uses of the technologies, especially within the University system are showcased. Furthermore
during such training, the ICT policy and its role in effective technology uptake should be prominent.
The policy needs to be made more visible, since it seems most lecturers are not aware that such a
policy exists.
36
References
Akinnuwesi B. Adedoyin A.A and Adegoke, M.A. (2008). A Framework of Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) Policy for Education in Nigeria. Revitalization of African Higher
Education 305-317.
Iwasokun G. B., Alese B. K., Thompson A. F. and Aranuwa F. O. (2012) Statistical evaluation of the
impact of ICT on Nigerian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 2012, Vol. 8, Issue 1, pp. 104-120.
Abimbola Tooki . (2011). Communication Minister to Dump IT Policy. Published August 29th, 2011.
http://businessworldng.com/web/articles/2120/1/Communication-Minister-to-Dump-ITPolicy/Page1.html
4. National ICT policy, draft. By Ministerial committee on ICT policy harmonization
January 9, 2012/
Osei Tutu Agyeman. (2007). Survey of ICT and Education in Africa: Nigeria Country Report ICT for
Education in Nigeria www.infodev.org
37
Annexure A – Staff Questionnaire
PARTNERSHIP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MULTI-SITE RESEARCH ON FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
UPTAKE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN SEVEN UNIVERSITIES IN
AFRICA
Staff questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to generate data for a multi-site study that explores Factors, which
influence the use of educational technologies in seven PHEA partner universities to support the
integration of education technologies in higher education in Africa. Your responses will be treated in
confidence and used for the purposes of this study only.
SECTION A:
Demographic Information
This section contains questions that will help us understand the answers you provide better (Fill in the
appropriate response).
College
Sex
Male
Female
Department/School
Designation
Terms Of Service Contract
(tick)
Part
time
Duration of service
in University of
Ibadan (Years)
Age (Please tick)
How many courses First semester?
do you teach in:
Second semester?
SECTION B:
Permanent
< 20________
21-30________
31-40________
41-50________
51-60________
>60________
Access to Educational Technologies (ETs)
What educational technologies are available in your unit (please tick as many as applicable)
Technologies
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
iPad
Tick
Others not listed (Specify)
38
Technologies
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Smart phones
Tick
Which of the listed ETs can you use whenever you need to use it for personal reasons? Please indicate
the purpose.
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
Radio
Multimedia projector
Internet
Interactive white board
Public Address system
Laptop Computers
Printer
Desktop Computers
Scanner
Television
Digital camera
Smart Phones
ipad
Others not listed (Specify)
Which of the following technologies do you personally own?
Technologies
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Smart Phones
Others not listed (Specify)
Tick
Technologies
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
ipad
Tick
Which other ETs would you like to use for teaching, which you are not currently using? Please tick
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
Radio
Multimedia projector
Internet
Interactive white board
Public Address system
Laptop Computers
Printer
Desktop Computers
Scanner
Television
Digital camera
Smart Phones
iPad
Others not listed (Specify)
State how you wish to use these technologies for teaching
Technologies
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
How I wish to use them
39
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Mention the ETs you need to enhance your teaching experiences but you cannot have access to. Please
indicate the reasons why you cannot access these ETs for teaching
Educational Technologies I need for Teaching Reasons why I cannot access these ETs for
but cannot access
teaching
7. What skills do you feel are needed to enable teaching staff use ETs for teaching?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Which ETs does the University provide for Use in Teaching?
Technologies
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Tick
Technologies
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Tick
9.Where are the ETs used for teaching kept?
Educational Technology for Teaching
Places
Storage
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
40
of Person
charge
in Comments
Educational Technology for Teaching
Places
Storage
of Person
charge
in Comments
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Section C: Use of Educational Technologies for Teaching
How many courses are you currently teaching? (Please name them)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
11. Mention which of these courses are using ETs and those that are not
Courses that I teach with some component of Courses that I teach without any component of
Educational Technology use
Educational Technology use
Mention reasons you are not able to use ETs in the courses you have mentioned.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Section D: Training and ET Competence
13. I have been trained in the use of ETs Yes
No
14. I use ETs for all my classes
No
Yes
15. My teaching experience has been improved with the use of ETs Yes
No
b)
How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_______________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_______________
16. My assessment skills has been improved with the use of ETs
Yes
No
41
b)
How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_______________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________
17. My teaching experience is affected negatively by use of ETs. Yes
No
18. Please state how your teaching is affected negatively by using ETs
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………....
19. When I have a problem with technology in class, I can easily fix it on my own
Yes
No
20. When I have a problem with technology in class, I have someone I can call to fix it
Yes
No
21. I know how to design an online course. Yes
No
SECTION E:
Context within which technologies are used
22. Please tick as applicable
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
My institution has adequate power supply
My institution has adequate Internet
connectivity
The lecture rooms and laboratories where
these technologies are used can adequately
accommodate students
The lecture rooms and laboratories are
properly lit
The lecture rooms and laboratories are well
ventilated
The sitting arrangement in the lecture
rooms/laboratories is fixed, it cannot be rearranged for group work
There is technical support in my faculty to
assist with difficulty I may have with
technology
All the technologies available are functioning
I am aware of the ICT policy in my institution
I am confident to use technology for teaching
23. Enablers of technology uptake
42
I don’t know
Agree
Disagree I
don’t Agree
know
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of technology
in the classroom for my course
I will make better use of technologies for teaching if I have easy
access to these technologies
It will be easy for me to use these technologies if I have technical
support
The number of technologies available to the number of students is
not adequate
In my institution there is ICT capacity development training
regularly
There are incentive /schemes in place to encourage teachers who
use technologies
Power supply within the institution is reliable
The available supply of power enables me to use technology for
teaching without interruption
Barriers to technology up take
Disagree I
don’t Agree
know
The hardware available is out-dated
Some of the software available is inappropriate
There is poor internet access in the school
I am not a confident user of some of these technologies
I do not think my students are competent enough to use
technology for learning
THANK YOU
43
Annexure B – Student Questionnaire
PARTNERSHIP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MULTI-SITE RESEARCH ON FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
UPTAKE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN SEVEN UNIVERSITIES IN
AFRICA
Student questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to generate data for a multi-site study that explores factors which
influence the use of educational technologies in seven PHEA partner universities to support the
integration of education technologies in higher education in Africa. Your responses will be treated in
confidence and used for the purposes of this study only.
SECTION A:
Demographic Information
Institute/College/Faculty: ...........................................................................................................
Department:.............................................................................................................................................
Which of the following best describes the course you are studying? (Please tick one)
Science
[
]
Applied Science [
]
Arts
[
]
Business
[
]
Your current level of Study in this course (Please tick one)
First
[
]
Second [
]
Third [
]
Fourth [
]
Fifth [
]
Sixth [
]
Seventh
[
]
Eighth [
]
Which programme have you enrolled in? (Please tick one)
Certificate
[
]
Diploma
[
]
Undergraduate
[
]
Postgraduate Diploma
[
]
Masters
[
]
PhD
[
]
Your attendance pattern (Please tick applicable)
Full time
[
]
Part time
[
]
Distance
[
]
Sandwich
[
]
Age (Please tick one)
< 20 years [
]
21-30 years
[
]
31-40 years
[
]
41-50 years
[
]
51-60 years
[
]
>60 years
[
]
Sex
Male [
]
44
Female [
]
SECTION B:
Access to Educational Technologies
Which of the following technologies are available in your Unit Faculty/Department? (Tick as many as
applicable)
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
[
]
Multimedia projector
[
]
Interactive white board
[
]
Laptop Computers
[
]
Desktop Computers
[
]
Television
[
]
Radio
[
]
Internet
[
]
Public Address system
[
]
Printer
[
]
Scanner
[
]
Digital camera
[
]
Others not listed (Specify)
Which of the following technologies can you use in your unit or Department/ Faculty? (Tick as many as
applicable)
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
[
]
Multimedia projector
[
]
Interactive white board
[
]
Laptop Computers
[
]
Desktop Computers
[
]
Television
[
]
Radio
[
]
Internet
[
]
Public Address system
[
]
Printer
[
]
Scanner
[
]
Digital camera
[
]
Others not listed (Specify)
Which of the following technologies do you personally own?
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
[
]
Multimedia projector
[
]
Interactive white board
[
]
Laptop Computers
[
]
Desktop Computers
[
]
Television
[
]
Radio
[
]
Internet
[
]
Public address system
[
]
Printer
[
]
Scanner
[
]
Cell Phone
[
]
I-pad
[
]
45
Mp3
[
]
Which of the following technologies do you not have access to, but would be happy to use if you had
access to them?
Technologies
Tick
a. Overhead projector
b. Multimedia projector
c. Interactive white board
d. Laptop Computers
e. Desktop Computers
f. Television
g. Radio
h. Internet
i. Public address system
j. Printer
k. Scanner
l. Cell Phone
m.-pad
Mp3
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
SECTION C: Use of Educational Technologies for Learning
Which of these technologies do you use for learning purposes? (Tick as many as applicable)
Used for Learning purposes
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive White Boards
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital Camera
Cell Phone
Social Network
Skype
Email
I-pad/I-pod
Mp3
CD/DVD
Others (Specify)
What else do you use the technologies for? Tick as applicable.
Studyin Resear Social
g
ch
Interaction
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
46
Assignme
nts
Tests
Interactive White Boards
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital Camera
Cell Phone
Social Network
Skype
Email
I-pad/I-pod
Mp3
CD/DVD
Others (Specify)
Do you use the following applications/features on the computers in your learning? (Tick as applicable)
Yes
No
Word Processor (e.g. MS Word)
[
]
[
]
Presentation Software (e.g. MS PowerPoint)
[
]
[
]
Spreadsheet software (e.g. MS Excel)
[
]
[
]
Email programme (e.g. MS Outlook)
[
]
[
]
Internet browser (e.g. Internet Explorer)
[
]
[
]
Learning Management System
[
]
[
]
CD/DVD player
[
]
[
]
Others, please specify
If you use the above indicate where you often use it? (Tick as applicable)
My
Labora Lectu
own
tory
re
compu
Roo
ter
m
Word Processing (e.g. MS Word)
Presentation (e.g. MS PowerPoint)
Spreadsheet software (e.g. MS Excel)
Email programme (e.g. MS Outlook)
Internet browser (e.g. Internet Explorer)
Learning Management Systems
CD/DVD player
Others, please specify
For what do you use the applications/tools? (Tick as applicable)
47
Cyb
er
caf
e
School
environ
ment
Library
Studyin
g
Resear
ch
Social
interactio
n
Assignme
nts
Tests
Word Processing (e.g. MS Word)
Presentation (e.g. MS PowerPoint)
Spreadsheet software (e.g. MS Excel)
Email programme (e.g. MS Outlook)
Internet browser (e.g. Internet Explorer)
Learning Management Systems
CD/DVD player
Others, please specify
Where do you use technologies for learning? Tick as many as applicable
Laborato Lecture
Cyber
ry
Room
cafe
Anywhere Library
in
the
School
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive White Boards
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital Camera
Others (Specify)
Do you use these technologies for any of the following purposes?
Technologies
Cell
iPod/
Task/Purpose
Phon Ipad
e
Word processing
Calculations
Managing information in spreadsheets
Creating presentations (e.g. in PowerPoint)
Communication
Using specialised data management and analysis
software (e.g. InVivo and SPSS)
Finding information on the Internet/Browsing on
the internet
Social networking (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn)
Online shopping (e.g. eBay)
48
Laptop
/PC
PDA
Others
(Specify)
Technologies
Cell
iPod/
Phon Ipad
e
Task/Purpose
Laptop
/PC
PDA
Others
(Specify)
Internet banking (e.g. BIM)
Other (Specify)
…………………………………
Who uses these technologies in your faculty/Department? Tick as applicable
Lecturers Students
Admin Staff Technologists
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive White Boards
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital Camera
Others not listed (Specify)
SECTION D:
Training and ET Competence
I have been trained in the use of ETs Yes
I use ETs in all my classes
No
Yes
No
23. My learning experience has been improved with the use of ETs Yes
No
b)
How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
24. My assessment during learning has been improved with the use of ETs
Yes
No
b)
How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
25. My learning experience is affected negatively by use of ETs.
Yes
No
26. Please state how your learning is affected negatively by using ETs
49
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….............................................................
27. When I have a problem with technology in class, I can easily fix it on my own
Yes
No
28. When I have a problem with technology in class, I have someone I can call to fix it
Yes
No
SECTION D: Context within which technologies are used
Please tick applicable option for each statement.
Disagre
e
I
don’t Agre
know
e
My institution has adequate power supply
My institution has adequate Internet connectivity
The lecture rooms and laboratories where these
technologies are used can adequately accommodate
students
The lecture rooms and laboratories are properly lit
The lecture rooms and laboratories are well ventilated
The sitting arrangement in the lecture rooms/laboratories is
fixed, it cannot be re-arranged for group work
There is technical support in my faculty to assist with student
difficulty with use of technology
All the technologies available are functioning properly
I am aware of the ICT policy in my institution
Lecturers are confident to use technologies
Enablers of technology uptake
Disagree I don’t Agree
know
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of
technology in the classroom for my course
I will make better use of technologies for learning if I have
easy access to these technologies
It will be easy for me to use these technologies if I have
technical support
The number of technologies available to the number of
students is not adequate
In my institution there is ICT capacity development training
regularly
There are incentive /schemes in place to encourage
teachers who use technologies
Power supply within the institution is reliable
The available supply of power enables me to use
technology for learning
I am free to use technologies for my learning even though
my lecturers are not using technology
Barriers to technology uptake
Disagree I don’t Agree
know
50
The hardware available is out dated
Some of the software available is inappropriate
There is poor internet access in the school
I am not a confident user of some of these technologies
I do not think my teachers are competent enough to use
technology for teaching
THANK YOU
51
Annexure C – Focus group discussion and interview guide for staff
PARTNERSHIP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MULTI-SITE RESEARCH ON FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
UPTAKE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN SEVEN UNIVERSITIES IN
AFRICA
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION/INTERVIEW FOR STAFF
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Do you use any technologies for teaching?
Which Technologies are you using and how?
Probes:
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Others
If you are not using the technologies- why not?
How do you use the technologies(probe how technology is used for the other specific
teaching areas as follows) for
Teaching
Research
Social Interaction
Assignments
Tests
18. Why would you use technology for teaching? (Probe: research, social interaction,
assignments and tests)
19. What are some of the advantages of using technology for teaching?
20. What are some of the disadvantages of using technology for teaching?
21. What challenges do you face in your quest to use ETs for teaching/Research/ Social
Interaction/tests/Assessments?
22. Have you been discouraged in times past and stopped using technology for teaching/
Research/ social interactions and assignments? Why?
23. Why did you start using ETs
24. How has the university successfully promoted ETS use in teaching and learning?
25. Is it easy for you to access technology?
26. Where do you get access?
52
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
What are the barriers to access to technology?
What are the barriers to use of technology?
What would you consider to be enablers to technology use?
Do you think you are good with technology? Explain your answer.
Do you think your students are good with technology? Explain your answer.
Are you adequately using technology for teaching and assessment? Explain your answer.
Does the university have an ICT policy? What does it say in relation to technology for
teaching and learning?
53
Annexure D –Focus group discussion guide for students
PARTNERSHIP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MULTI-SITE RESEARCH ON FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
UPTAKE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN SEVEN HE INSTITUTIONS
IN AFRICA
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION FOR STUDENTS
1. Do you use any technologies for learning?
2. Which Technologies are you using and how?
Probes
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Cellphone
Ipad
MP3
Others
3. If you are not using the technologies- why not?
4. How do you use the technologies(probe how technology is used for the other specific
learning areas as follows) for
Studying
Research
Social Interaction
Assignments
Tests
Why would you use technology for learning? (Probe: Studying, research, social interaction,
assignments and tests)
5. What are some of the advantages of using technology for learning?
6. What are some of the disadvantages of using technology for learning?
7. What challenges do you face in your quest to use ETs for learning/ studying/Research/ Social
Interaction/tests/Assessments?
8. Have you been discouraged in times past and stopped using technology for learning/
Research/ social interactions and assignments? Why?
9. Why did you start using ETs
54
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
How has the university successfully promoted ETS use in learning?
Is it easy for you to access technology?
Where do you get access?
What are the barriers to access technology?
What are the barriers to use technology?
What would you consider to be enablers to technology use?
Do you think you are good with technology? Explain your answer.
Do you think your lecturers are good with technology? Explain your answer.
Is technology use for teaching by your lecturers adequate? Explain your answer.
55